It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I don't think that's a problem, CraigBond kills all the time and it doesn't matter. I think it's more Bond's swagger and self-assuredness that set him apart, and that's something almost entirely added by the films, and I think it made Bond the phenomenon he is.
On the basis of casting an actor on a single photo there's a universe out there where Whishaw played a period Bond instead of Q :))
Lines like the one in Goldfinger about the Brandy being overdosed with Bon Bois would be emitted from future films.
I like the films taking story ideas and characters from the novels. And keeping Bond in touch with Fleming's character, without keeping him in the 50's setting of the books.
Yep, absolutely. At this point in time, James Bond 007 is as much a creation of Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman as it is Ian Fleming's. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
I'd argue that Moore's Bond was prone to killing without thinking twice too (ie. TSWLM where he slaps the henchman's hand away and he falls from the roof). I don't think today's moralisms have led to any sort of downplaying of this aspect of the character either. Craig's Bond doesn't hesitate killing Logan, for instance. Ok, it's for revenge, but if it were Fleming's Bond I get the feeling the story would take a breather and Bond would mull over what he'd just done, remember how the guy looked in his final moments before eventually coming to the conclusion 'eye for an eye. He was a bad man and the world is better without him in it' etc.
I dunno, it'd be interesting to lean into that aspect of the character more. At the end of the day Bond is a man who loves danger/adventure almost to the same extent as his vices, but he's very much human. He has to do it much of the time, but when he kills it does impact him. It's what sets him apart from the villains often, that sense of humanity. I think they tried to do it to a lesser extent in GE when Bond is on the beach with Natalya and they discuss him having to kill Trevelyn. It's a scene I really like - much of what Bond is thinking is unsaid, and Brosnan's acting is understated, but you do get the sense that Bond has to put up that 'shield' when it comes to this part of his job, despite how morally questionable it is. To me, that's part of the essence of the character.
First time he kills an unarmed baddie, and the camera stops on his face for an extra second as he looks at the corpse. The next time he spares the life of a pleeing baddie after disarming him. The third time he spares the life of a bad guy who takes the opportunity to kill the Bond girl/double 0, jeopardising the entire mission and gets Bond caught. After that he goes on rampage killing sprees like Colin Firth in the church scene in Kingsman.
It shouldn’t be a central theme in any case. Just a subtle extra layer.
CR dealt with it very quickly and wittily in juxtaposing the arduous first kill with the second more effortless one, and explicated it in an abbreviated one liner. Vesper contrasted Bond’s development in the shower scene, and even questioned his at dinner. By the end of QoS he didn’t exact revenge on Yusuf (who btw needed to be interrogated) and let Greene off himself in an ironic way.
I’d say it’s already been explored quite well and thoroughly.
I get what you mean in the sense that it's not really an aspect of the character you can do anything with narratively. Bond has to kill people at the end of the day. It's his job. Mould this into a character arc and you get the whole 'A license to kill is also a licence not to kill' nonsense from SP. It doesn't work as Bond usually has to chose to kill. That said I do think Bond's fundamental dislike of killing, that central humanity (especially compared to the villains who often share similar traits with Bond) is important I think, as is that 'mask' he puts up when being confronted about it. I'd argue the more interesting/engaging scenes of CR were during those close ups of him in the PTS, or him comforting Vesper in the shower after the staircase killing. I'd argue the sinking house segment is one of the worst parts of the film, and to me moments of it feel... well, weird (why does Bond randomly say "allow me" after the villain shouts that he'll kill Vesper? Strange moment to have a quip like that).
Anyway, bringing this back onto actors, I do hope that whoever gets the part understands much of this stuff about the character and is able to project that sense of humanity into their interpretation. I've seen a lot of people talk about the next Bond having to have that 'swagger', that certain x-factor. I mean, an actor has to have screen presence and embody the character, arguably have that certain something, but I also think something equally key to the role is how the actor sees the character and what comes through in their performance. As much as I have criticisms of NTTD it felt that Bond was human, not just a generic action character. It's the same when I watch GF and see Connery's Bond during the laser scene - the look of fear on his face despite him trying to talk his way out. It really sells me on the danger of the situation. Hell, it's the exact same with Moore's Bond and the look he gives Anya in TSWLM when she references Tracy, or when he realises that he killed Sergei. Or Brosnan's Bond during that scene in GE I mentioned.
I mean, if playing Bond were just a case of puffing out your chest, practicing the 'Bond, James Bond' line in the mirror, then Henry Cavill could play it. What separates actors like this from successful candidates is their ability to sell when Bond is in danger, when he feels hurt, and indeed when he's relishing his job and having fun.
Agree though that the actor has to be able to convey deeper inner thoughts and feelings in a subtle and naturalistic manner. Which unfortunately rules out some of the more aesthetically fit candidates when looking at their previous performances.
But again, good writing and a micro managing director could bring it out from just about anyone. At least I’d like to think so. If you place a monitor in the actor’s line of vision they could watch their performance in real time and adjust accordingly.
Oh, I edited that part of my post out. For those interested the idea was Bond being sent to assassinate someone, hesitating, finding a bigger plot and ultimately choosing to intervene to save people despite it not being a part of his job as an agent (so a kind of TMTWGG novel idea). So the idea is while Bond's dislike of killing is there, the character arc would be about Bond choosing to intervene to stop the villain's bigger plot. I'd say it's slightly different to TLD in the sense that Bond actually knows and is friends with Pushkin and Kara is a woman. In TMWTGG and the FYEO short story he has to kill bad people, his objections being that it's an assassination/cold blooded killing.
I'd say it doesn't necessarily come out with every actor. I mean, most non-professional actors can do single emotions (just look at Lazenby, even he could cry on cue) but when it comes to anything deeper it gets tricker. Take Lazenby again - it's why many of his scenes when he's posing as Sir Hillary don't work for me. When he's in the helicopter and starts to look uneasy, it's strange as this is presumably not how Bond is feeling or would convey this emotion if he was. He was missing a look, a shift in expression that would convey to the audience his Bond was playing a part. It's why much of his acting in that film is described as wooden while other parts of his performance are praised. He can do the big, obvious moments - the look of terror, the crying etc. but not the more subtle ones that require an actor to play the scene in a more understated way.
In my opinion Richard Madden is the most capable at understated acting out of all the candidates, but it isn’t enough put him in my top 3.
Lazenby was pure wood and the terrible voice-over made it even worse.
I think with Bond an actor's natural instinct is usually to underplay everything... perhaps after Craig and the material he was given there will be less of this and some actors will instead overplay certain emotions/moments, which is also not ideal.
I very much disagree, a throwaway quip in an emotionally heated moment is exactly what it was. I doubt he would have aimed directly at her as opposed to simply not caring about her ending up as collateral damage. LOL. He tried to save her from drowning herself and was devastated by her death only moments after.
Of all the photos available online to show Aidan Turner, Esqure went with:
Lol
Yeah cos Bond goes around with shades and a bushy beard.
;))
(Die Another Day doesn't really count!)
*Lights another smoke*
😂😂
I don't envy the producers with Bond 26. I feel like no matter what they do they're going to really annoy most of us on here.
I'm just hoping it's not a radical new direction
https://londonfilmandcomiccon.com/guest/aidan-turner/
We should run a GoFundMe and all chip in.
I am in!
I have to think about it still...
😏
EoN/ Amazon would be lucky to have him, chap
See that bit where I put 'in the heat of the moment'...?
I feel it's going to be Dunkirk. Don't know who in Dunkirk, but one of the actors in it.
I don’t understand your love for him. He does look like he could pull certain elements off but I just don’t see him as Bond. He doesn’t look particularly unique and isn’t exactly highly regarded as an actor, so I don’t see how Amazon would be lucky? I don’t mean to denigrate his talents- I’m an actor myself and he’s much more successful an actor than I am, right now!
I don’t dislike the guy, I just don’t find him to be an exciting choice.
As someone else on here has said, he does resemble an Italian waiter. He also reminds me of the guy Bond batters in the toilets at the start of Casino Royale.
Yeah, but Dan reminded some people of Red Grant and that wasn't a deal-breaker...
I do feel the problem with going from that film is that most of the actors feel just a bit... well, too similar to one another... Lowden's in there, although I've gone off him as a likely candidate.
That said, I'd keep an eye on Fionn Whitehead. He's too young at 24 at the moment, but going from Dunkirk there were moments in there where I'd have believed he was an 18 year old James Bond (just little watchful looks he gives here and there between his character looking afraid). He does have the classic 'look', if that's worth anything. He's actually a solid actor too. Anyway, perhaps see in about 10 years or so...
I agree.